On 2012-12-07 18:49, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Dec 7, 2012, at 9:29 AM, Ted Lemon <mellon at fugue.com> wrote:
>>> Not is coding the parser for this representation harder, but it also creates the possibility of unanticipated gaps in the specification that we will discover later. The simpler the format is, the less likely it is that we will run into that problem.
>> How is this any different than for XML? We are still finding places where xml2rfc fails with "unanticipated gaps". We're humans writing complex documents: we will find edge cases almost reflexively.
Mostly for input that doesn't conform to the DTD.
>> You also propose that the IETF define new HTML extensions to handle the xml2rfc author tag and sub-tags, which is really out of scope for the IETF—that's more of a w3c thing.
>> Say what?!?! Every organization creates its own extensions to HTML just like they create their own schema for XML. Saying that it is out of scope for the IETF to make IETF-specific extensions is crazy.
Really? When you say "extensions" are you referring to stuff like new
elements or attributes???
> ...
Best regards, Julian